mTORC1-Activated S6K1 Phosphorylates Rictor on Threonine 1135 and Regulates mTORC2 Signaling

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a conserved Ser/Thr kinase that forms two functionally distinct complexes important for nutrient and growth factor signaling. While mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) regulates mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, mTORC2 plays an important role in the phosphorylation and subsequent activation of Akt. Interestingly, mTORC1 negatively regulates Akt activation, but whether mTORC1 signaling directly targets mTORC2 remains unknown. Here we show that growth factors promote the phosphorylation of Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), an essential subunit of mTORC2. We found that Rictor phosphorylation requires mTORC1 activity and, more specifically, the p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1). We identified several phosphorylation sites in Rictor and found that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 in vitro and in vivo, in a rapamycin-sensitive manner. Phosphorylation of Rictor on Thr1135 did not affect mTORC2 assembly, kinase activity, or cellular localization. However, cells expressing a Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased mTORC2-dependent phosphorylation of Akt. In addition, phosphorylation of the Akt substrates FoxO1/3a and glycogen synthase kinase 3α/β (GSK3α/β) was found to be increased in these cells, indicating that S6K1-mediated phosphorylation of Rictor inhibits mTORC2 and Akt signaling. Together, our results uncover a new regulatory link between the two mTOR complexes, whereby Rictor integrates mTORC1-dependent signaling.The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an evolutionarily conserved phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-related Ser/Thr kinase that integrates signals from nutrients, energy sufficiency, and growth factors to regulate cell growth as well as organ and body size in a variety of organisms (reviewed in references 4, 38, 49, and 77). mTOR was discovered as the molecular target of rapamycin, an antifungal agent used clinically as an immunosuppressant and more recently as an anticancer drug (5, 20). Recent evidence indicates that deregulation of the mTOR pathway occurs in a majority of human cancers (12, 18, 25, 46), suggesting that rapamycin analogs may be potent antineoplastic therapeutic agents.mTOR forms two distinct multiprotein complexes, the rapamycin-sensitive and -insensitive mTOR complexes 1 and 2 (mTORC1 and mTORC2), respectively (6, 47). In cells, rapamycin interacts with FKBP12 and targets the FKBP12-rapamycin binding (FRB) domain of mTORC1, thereby inhibiting some of its function (13, 40, 66). mTORC1 is comprised of the mTOR catalytic subunit and four associated proteins, Raptor (regulatory associated protein of mTOR), mLST8 (mammalian lethal with sec13 protein 8), PRAS40 (proline-rich Akt substrate of 40 kDa), and Deptor (28, 43, 44, 47, 59, 73, 74). The small GTPase Rheb (Ras homolog enriched in brain) is a key upstream activator of mTORC1 that is negatively regulated by the tuberous sclerosis complex 1 (TSC1)/TSC2 GTPase-activating protein complex (reviewed in reference 35). mTORC1 is activated by PI3K and Ras signaling through direct phosphorylation and inactivation of TSC2 by Akt, extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), and p90 ribosomal protein S6 kinase (RSK) (11, 37, 48, 53, 63). mTORC1 activity is also regulated at the level of Raptor. Whereas low cellular energy levels negatively regulate mTORC1 activity through phosphorylation of Raptor by AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (27), growth signaling pathways activating the Ras/ERK pathway positively regulate mTORC1 activity through direct phosphorylation of Raptor by RSK (10). More recent evidence has also shown that mTOR itself positively regulates mTORC1 activity by directly phosphorylating Raptor at proline-directed sites (20a, 75). Countertransport of amino acids (55) and amino acid signaling through the Rag GTPases were also shown to regulate mTORC1 activity (45, 65). When activated, mTORC1 phosphorylates two main regulators of mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, the AGC (protein kinase A, G, and C) family kinase p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1), and thus stimulates protein synthesis and cellular growth (50, 60).The second mTOR complex, mTORC2, is comprised of mTOR, Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), mSin1 (mammalian stress-activated mitogen-activated protein kinase-interacting protein 1), mLST8, PRR5 (proline-rich region 5), and Deptor (21, 39, 58, 59, 66, 76, 79). Rapamycin does not directly target and inhibit mTORC2, but long-term treatment with this drug was shown to correlate with mTORC2 disassembly and cytoplasmic accumulation of Rictor (21, 39, 62, 79). Whereas mTORC1 regulates hydrophobic motif phosphorylation of S6K1, mTORC2 has been shown to phosphorylate other members of the AGC family of kinases. Biochemical and genetic evidence has demonstrated that mTORC2 phosphorylates Akt at Ser473 (26, 39, 68, 70), thereby contributing to growth factor-mediated Akt activation (6, 7, 52). Deletion or knockdown of the mTORC2 components mTOR, Rictor, mSin1, and mLST8 has a dramatic effect on mTORC2 assembly and Akt phosphorylation at Ser473 (26, 39, 79). mTORC2 was also shown to regulate protein kinase Cα (PKCα) (26, 66) and, more recently, serum- and glucocorticoid-induced protein kinase 1 (SGK1) (4, 22). Recent evidence implicates mTORC2 in the regulation of Akt and PKCα phosphorylation at their turn motifs (19, 36), but whether mTOR directly phosphorylates these sites remains a subject of debate (4).Activation of mTORC1 has been shown to negatively regulate Akt phosphorylation in response to insulin or insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) (reviewed in references 30 and 51). This negative regulation is particularly evident in cell culture models with defects in the TSC1/TSC2 complex, where mTORC1 and S6K1 are constitutively activated. Phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) by mTORC1 (72) and its downstream target S6K1 has been shown to decrease its stability and lead to an inability of insulin or IGF1 to activate PI3K and Akt (29, 69). Although the mechanism is unknown, platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (PDGF-Rβ) has been found to be downregulated in TSC1- and TSC2-deficient murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), contributing to a reduction of PI3K signaling (80). Interestingly, inhibition of Akt phosphorylation by mTORC1 has also been observed in the presence of growth factors other than IGF-1, insulin, or PDGF, suggesting that there are other mechanisms by which mTORC1 activation restricts Akt activity in cells (reviewed in references 6 and 31). Recent evidence demonstrates that rapamycin treatment causes a significant increase in Rictor electrophoretic mobility (2, 62), suggesting that phosphorylation of the mTORC2 subunit Rictor may be regulated by mTORC1 or downstream protein kinases.Herein, we demonstrate that Rictor is phosphorylated by S6K1 in response to mTORC1 activation. We demonstrate that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 and found that a Rictor mutant lacking this phosphorylation site increases Akt phosphorylation induced by growth factor stimulation. Cells expressing the Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased Akt signaling to its substrates compared to Rictor wild-type- and T1135D mutant-expressing cells. Together, our results suggest that Rictor integrates mTORC1 signaling via its phosphorylation by S6K1, resulting in the inhibition of mTORC2 and Akt signaling.     

Crystallographic Definition of the Epitope Promiscuity of the Broadly Neutralizing Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Antibody 2F5: Vaccine Design Implications

The quest to create a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) vaccine capable of eliciting broadly neutralizing antibodies against Env has been challenging. Among other problems, one difficulty in creating a potent immunogen resides in the substantial overall sequence variability of the HIV envelope protein. The membrane-proximal region (MPER) of gp41 is a particularly conserved tryptophan-rich region spanning residues 659 to 683, which is recognized by three broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (bnMAbs), 2F5, Z13, and 4E10. In this study, we first describe the variability of residues in the gp41 MPER and report on the invariant nature of 15 out of 25 amino acids comprising this region. Subsequently, we evaluate the ability of the bnMAb 2F5 to recognize 31 varying sequences of the gp41 MPER at a molecular level. In 19 cases, resulting crystal structures show the various MPER peptides bound to the 2F5 Fab′. A variety of amino acid substitutions outside the ⁶⁶⁴DKW⁶⁶⁶ core epitope are tolerated. However, changes at the ⁶⁶⁴DKW⁶⁶⁶ motif itself are restricted to those residues that preserve the aspartate''s negative charge, the hydrophobic alkyl-π stacking arrangement between the β-turn lysine and tryptophan, and the positive charge of the former. We also characterize a possible molecular mechanism of 2F5 escape by sequence variability at position 667, which is often observed in HIV-1 clade C isolates. Based on our results, we propose a somewhat more flexible molecular model of epitope recognition by bnMAb 2F5, which could guide future attempts at designing small-molecule MPER-like vaccines capable of eliciting 2F5-like antibodies.Eliciting broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) against primary isolates of human immunodeficiency virus type I (HIV-1) has been identified as a major milestone to attain in the quest for a vaccine in the fight against AIDS (12, 28). These antibodies would need to interact with HIV-1 envelope glycoproteins gp41 and/or gp120 (Env), target conserved regions and functional conformations of gp41/gp120 trimeric complexes, and prevent new HIV-1 fusion events with target cells (21, 57, 70, 71). Although a humoral response generating neutralizing antibodies against HIV-1 can be detected in HIV-1-positive individuals, the titers are often very low, and virus control is seldom achieved by these neutralizing antibodies (22, 51, 52, 66, 67). The difficulty in eliciting a broad and potent neutralizing antibody response against HIV-1 is thought to reside in the high degree of genetic diversity of the virus, in the heterogeneity of Env on the surface of HIV-1, and in the masking of functional regions by conformational covering, by an extensive glycan shield, or by the ability of some conserved domains to partition to the viral membrane (24, 25, 29, 30, 38, 39, 56, 68, 69). So far, vaccine trials using as immunogens mimics of Env in different conformations have primarily elicited antibodies with only limited neutralization potency across different HIV-1 clades although recent work has demonstrated more encouraging results (4, 12, 61).The use of conserved regions on gp41 and gp120 Env as targets for vaccine design has been mostly characterized by the very few anti-HIV-1 broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (bnMAbs) that recognize them: the CD4 binding-site on gp120 (bnMAb b12), a CD4-induced gp120 coreceptor binding site (bnMAbs 17b and X5), a mannose cluster on the outer face of gp120 (bnMAb 2G12), and the membrane proximal external region (MPER) of gp41 (bnMAbs 2F5, Z13 and 4E10) (13, 29, 44, 58, 73). The gp41 MPER region is a particularly conserved part of Env that spans residues 659 to 683 (HXB2 numbering) (37, 75). Substitution and deletion studies have linked this unusually tryptophan-rich region to the fusion process of HIV-1, possibly involving a series of conformational changes (5, 37, 41, 49, 54, 74). Additionally, the gp41 MPER has been implicated in gp41 oligomerization, membrane leakage ability facilitating pore formation, and binding to the galactosyl ceramide receptor on epithelial cells for initial mucosal infection mediated by transcytosis (2, 3, 40, 53, 63, 64, 72). This wide array of roles for the gp41 MPER will put considerable pressure on sequence conservation, and any change will certainly lead to a high cost in viral fitness.Monoclonal antibody 2F5 is a broadly neutralizing monoclonal anti-HIV-1 antibody isolated from a panel of sera from naturally infected asymptomatic individuals. It reacts with a core gp41 MPER epitope spanning residues 662 to 668 with the linear sequence ELDKWAS (6, 11, 42, 62, 75). 2F5 immunoglobulin G binding studies and screening of phage display libraries demonstrated that the DKW core is essential for 2F5 recognition and binding (15, 36, 50). Crystal structures of 2F5 with peptides representing its core gp41 epitope reveal a β-turn conformation involving the central DKW residues, flanked by an extended conformation and a canonical α-helical turn for residues located at the N terminus and C terminus of the core, respectively (9, 27, 45, 47). In addition to binding to its primary epitope, evidence is accumulating that 2F5 also undergoes secondary interactions: multiple reports have demonstrated affinity of 2F5 for membrane components, possibly through its partly hydrophobic flexible elongated complementarity-determining region (CDR) H3 loop, and it has also been suggested that 2F5 might interact in a secondary manner with other regions of gp41 (1, 10, 23, 32, 33, 55). Altogether, even though the characteristics of 2F5 interaction with its linear MPER consensus epitope have been described extensively, a number of questions persist about the exact mechanism of 2F5 neutralization at a molecular level.One such ambiguous area of the neutralization mechanism of 2F5 is investigated in this study. Indeed, compared to bnMAb 4E10, 2F5 is the more potent neutralizing antibody although its breadth across different HIV-1 isolates is more limited (6, 35). In an attempt to shed light on the exact molecular requirements for 2F5 recognition of its primary gp41 MPER epitope, we performed structural studies of 2F5 Fab′ with a variety of peptides. The remarkable breadth of possible 2F5 interactions reveals a somewhat surprising promiscuity of the 2F5 binding site. Furthermore, we link our structural observations with the natural variation observed within the gp41 MPER and discuss possible routes of 2F5 escape from a molecular standpoint. Finally, our discovery of 2F5''s ability to tolerate a rather broad spectrum of amino acids in its binding, a spectrum that even includes nonnatural amino acids, opens the door to new ways to design small-molecule immunogens potentially capable of eliciting 2F5-like neutralizing antibodies.     

Ebola Virus Glycoprotein Counteracts BST-2/Tetherin Restriction in a Sequence-Independent Manner That Does Not Require Tetherin Surface Removal

BST-2/tetherin is an interferon-inducible protein that restricts the release of enveloped viruses from the surface of infected cells by physically linking viral and cellular membranes. It is present at both the cell surface and in a perinuclear region, and viral anti-tetherin factors including HIV-1 Vpu and HIV-2 Env have been shown to decrease the cell surface population. To map the domains of human tetherin necessary for both virus restriction and sensitivity to viral anti-tetherin factors, we constructed a series of tetherin derivatives and assayed their activity. We found that the cytoplasmic tail (CT) and transmembrane (TM) domains of tetherin alone produced its characteristic cellular distribution, while the ectodomain of the protein, which includes a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor, was sufficient to restrict virus release when presented by the CT/TM regions of a different type II membrane protein. To counteract tetherin restriction and remove it from the cell surface, HIV-1 Vpu required the specific sequence present in the TM domain of human tetherin. In contrast, the HIV-2 Env required only the ectodomain of the protein and was sensitive to a point mutation in this region. Strikingly, the anti-tetherin factor, Ebola virus GP, was able to overcome restriction conferred by both tetherin and a series of functional tetherin derivatives, including a wholly artificial tetherin molecule. Moreover, GP overcame restriction without significantly removing tetherin from the cell surface. These findings suggest that Ebola virus GP uses a novel mechanism to circumvent tetherin restriction.Pathogenic viruses often have evolved mechanisms to neutralize host defenses that act at the cellular level to interfere with the virus life cycle. Such cellular restriction factors have been most extensively characterized for HIV-1 (38) and include the interferon-inducible membrane protein BST-2/HM1.24/CD317/tetherin (28, 40). If unchecked, tetherin blocks the release of newly formed HIV-1 particles from cells by physically tethering them at the cell surface (7, 28, 32, 40). In addition, tetherin has been shown to act against a broad range of enveloped viral particles, including retroviruses, filoviruses, arenaviruses, and herpesviruses (17, 18, 23, 35). In turn, certain viruses that are targeted by tetherin appear to have evolved counteracting activities, and anti-tetherin factors so far identified include HIV-1 Vpu; HIV-2 Env; simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) Nef, Vpu, and Env proteins; Ebola virus GP; and Kaposi''s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) K5 (11, 16, 18, 20, 23, 28, 36, 40, 44, 45).Tetherin is a homodimeric type II integral membrane protein containing an N-terminal cytoplasmic tail (CT), a single-pass transmembrane domain (TM), an ectodomain-containing predicted coiled-coil regions, two glycoslyation sites, three conserved cysteines, and a C-terminal glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor (2, 19, 31). This unusual topology, with two independent membrane anchors, has led to the suggestion that the retention of virions at the cell surface arises from tetherin''s ability to be inserted simultaneously in both host and viral membranes (28, 32, 41) or, alternatively, that dimers or higher-order complexes of tetherin conferred by the ectodomain mediate this effect (39). Interestingly, an artificial tetherin containing the same structural features as the native protein but constructed from unrelated sequences was able to restrict both HIV-1 and Ebola virus particles (32). This suggests that the viral lipid envelope is the target of tetherin and provides an explanation for tetherin''s broad activity against diverse enveloped viruses.A fraction of tetherin is present at the plasma membrane of cells (9, 14), and it has been proposed that viral anti-tetherin factors function by removing this cell surface fraction (40). This now has been shown to occur in the presence of HIV-1 Vpu (5, 7, 15, 26, 34, 40, 44), HIV-2 Env (5, 20), SIV Env (11), SIV Nef (15), and KSHV K5 (3, 23). In addition, certain anti-tetherin factors also may promote the degradation of tetherin, as has been observed for both HIV-1 Vpu (3, 5, 7, 10, 22, 26, 27) and KSHV K5 (3, 23), although Vpu also appears able to block tetherin restriction in the absence of degradation (8), and no effects on tetherin steady-state levels have been observed in the presence of either the HIV-2 or SIVtan Env (11, 20). Simply keeping tetherin away from the cell surface, or targeting it for degradation, may not be the only mechanism used by anti-tetherin factors, since it also has been reported that Vpu does not affect the levels of surface tetherin or its total cellular levels in certain T-cell lines (27).The interactions between tetherin and viral anti-tetherin factors show evidence of species specificity, suggesting ongoing evolution between viruses and their hosts. HIV-1 Vpu is active against human and chimpanzee tetherin but not other primate tetherins (10, 25, 34, 36, 44, 45), while SIV Nef proteins are active against primate but not human tetherins (16, 36, 44, 45). This suggests that, unlike tetherin restriction, the action of the anti-tetherin factors may involve specific sequence interactions. Indeed, the TM domain has been recognized as a target for HIV-1 Vpu (10, 15, 16, 25, 34), while a single point mutation introduced into the extracellular domain of human tetherin can block its antagonism by the SIVtan Env (11).In the present study, we investigated the roles of the different domains of tetherin in both promoting virus restriction and conferring susceptibility to the anti-tetherin factors encoded by HIV-1, HIV-2, and Ebola virus. We confirmed that tetherin restriction can be conferred by proteins that retain the two distinct membrane anchors, while signals for the cellular localization of the protein reside in the CT/TM domains of the protein. We found that the Vpu protein targets the TM domain of tetherin, while the HIV-2 Env targets the ectodomain of the protein. In contrast, the Ebola virus GP appears to use a non-sequence-specific mechanism to counteract tetherin restriction, since even an artificial tetherin could be successfully overcome by GP expression. Interestingly, Ebola virus GP counteracted tetherin restriction without removing the protein from the cell surface, suggesting that it is possible to overcome this restriction by mechanisms other than blocking tetherin''s cell surface expression.